Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

Donate to Project Reason

Join the Mailing List

Sign up to receive email updates from Project Reason.

Log in

 
not a member? Join here.
Forgot your password?

The Scripture Project

Browse the Bible, Qur’an or Book of Mormon for scriptural criticism, insights and careful annotation.

Most Recently Updated Passages

Archive

The Right to Offend: A Speech by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Posted: May 12, 2009.

Print: NRC Handelsblad

I am here to defend the right to offend.

It is my conviction that the vulnerable enterprise called democracy cannot exist without free expression, particularly in the media. Journalists must not forgo the obligation of free speech, which people in other hemispheres are denied.

I am of the opinion that it was correct to publish the cartoons of Muhammad in Jyllands Posten and it was right to re-publish them in other papers across Europe.

Let me reprise the history of this affair. The author of a children’s book on the prophet Muhammad could find no illustrators for his book. He claimed that illustrators were censoring themselves for fear of violence by Muslims who claimed no-one, anywhere, should be allowed to depict the prophet. Jyllands Posten decided to investigate this. They—rightly – felt that such self-censorship has far-reaching consequences for democracy.

It was their duty as journalists to solicit and publish drawings of the prophet Muhammad.

Shame on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage to show their readers the caricatures in The Cartoon Affair. These intellectuals live off free speech but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity of mind behind noble-sounding terms such as ‘responsibility’ and ‘sensitivity’.

Shame on those politicians who stated that publishing and re-publishing the drawings was ‘unnecessary’, ‘insensitive’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘wrong’. I am of the opinion that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark acted correctly when he refused to meet with representatives of tyrannical regimes who demanded from him that he limit the powers of the press. Today we should stand by him morally and materially. He is an example to all other European leaders. I wish my prime minister had Rasmussen’s guts.

Shame on those European companies in the Middle East that advertised “we are not Danish” or “we don’t sell Danish products”. This is cowardice. Nestle chocolates will never taste the same after this, will they? The EU member states should compensate Danish companies for the damage they have suffered from boycotts.

Liberty does not come cheap. A few million Euros is worth paying for the defence of free speech. If our governments neglect to help our Scandinavian friends then I hope citizens will organise a donation campaign for Danish companies.

We have been flooded with opinions on how tasteless and tactless the cartoons are—views emphasising that the cartoons only led to violence and discord. What good has come of the cartoons, so many wonder loudly?

Well, publication of the cartoons confirmed that there is widespread fear among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists and journalists who wish to describe, analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam all over Europe.

It has also revealed the presence of a considerable minority in Europe who do not understand or will not accept the workings of liberal democracy. These people – many of whom hold European citizenship – have campaigned for censorship, for boycotts, for violence, and for new laws to ban ‘Islamophobia’.

The cartoons revealed to the public eye that there are countries willing to violate diplomatic rules for political expediency. Evil governments like Saudi Arabia stage “grassroots” movements to boycott Danish milk and yoghurt, while they would mercilessly crash a grassroots movement fighting for the right to vote.

Today I am here to defend the right to offend within the bounds of the law. You may wonder: why Berlin? And why me?

Berlin is rich in the history of ideological challenges to the open society. This is the city where a wall kept people within the boundaries of the Communist state. It was the city which focalized the battle for the hearts and minds of citizens. Defenders of the open society educated people in the shortcomings of Communism. The work of Marx was discussed in universities, in op-ed pages and in schools. Dissidents who escaped from the East could write, make films, cartoons and use their creativity to persuade those in the West that Communism was far from paradise on earth.

Despite the self-censorship of many in the West, who idealised and defended Communism, and the brutal censorship of the East, that battle was won.

Today, the open society is challenged by Islamism, ascribed to a man named Muhammad Abdullah who lived in the seventh century, and who is regarded as a prophet. Many Muslims are peaceful people; not all are fanatics. As far as I am concerned they have every right to be faithful to their convictions. But within Islam exists a hard-line Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them. These Islamists seek to convince other Muslims that their way of life is the best. But when opponents of Islamism try to expose the fallacies in the teachings of Muhammad then they are accused of being offensive, blasphemous, socially irresponsible – even Islamophobic or racist.

The issue is not about race, colour or heritage. It is a conflict of ideas, which transcend borders and races.

Why me? I am a dissident, like those from the Eastern side of this city who defected to the West. I too defected to the West. I was born in Somalia, and grew up in Saudi Arabic and Kenya. I used to be faithful to the guidelines laid down by the prophet Muhammad. Like the thousands demonstrating against the Danish drawings, I used to hold the view that Muhammad was perfect—the only source of, and indeed, the criterion between good and bad. In 1989 when Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie to be killed for insulting Muhammad, I thought he was right. Now I don’t.

I think that the prophet was wrong to have placed himself and his ideas above critical thought.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have subordinated women to men.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have decreed that gays be murdered.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have said that apostates must be killed.

He was wrong in saying that adulterers should be flogged and stoned, and the hands of thieves should be cut off.

He was wrong in saying that those who die in the cause of Allah will be rewarded with paradise.

He was wrong in claiming that a proper society could be built only on his ideas.

The prophet did and said good things. He encouraged charity to others. But I wish to defend the position that he was also disrespectful and insensitive to those who disagreed with him.

I think it is right to make critical drawings and films of Muhammad. It is necessary to write books on him in order to educate ordinary citizens on Muhammad.

I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission.

I am not the only dissident in Islam. There are more like me here in the West. If they have no bodyguards they work under false identities to protect themselves from harm. But there are also others who refuse to conform: in Teheran, in Doha and Riyadh, in Amman and Cairo, in Khartoum and in Mogadishu, in Lahore and in Kabul.

The dissidents of Islamism, like the dissidents of communism, don’t have nuclear bombs or any other weapons. We have no money from oil like the Saudis. We will not burn embassies and flags. We refuse to get carried away in a frenzy of collective violence. In number we are too small and too scattered to become a collective of anything. In electoral terms here in the west we are practically useless.

All we have are our thoughts; and all we ask is a fair chance to express them. Our opponents will use force to silence us. They will use manipulation; they will claim they are mortally offended. They will claim we are mentally unstable and should not be taken seriously. The defenders of Communism, too, used these methods.

Berlin is a city of optimism. Communism failed. The wall was broken down. Things may seem difficult and confusing today. But I am optimistic that the virtual wall, between lovers of liberty and those who succumb to the seduction and safety of totalitarian ideas will also, one day, come down.

Berlin, 9.02.06

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comments (9)

1. Martin Bermea

Excellent article.

posted on May 12, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It is my conviction that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the most courageous people on the planet. We should all thank her.

posted on May 12, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agreed.  When we see an offense towards humanity our feelings and thoughts of disgust and revulsion need to be expressed, not hidden.  I admire you Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not only because you’ve showed me what I have, but also what I could lose by remaining silent.

posted on May 12, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well said, Francis.

posted on May 13, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you are awesome.I have studied your work and you are an inspiration to many . I had an unfortunate experience on a family holiday at a caravan park in England a few years ago. I was trying to have a civil debate about life with illiterate   managers and security guards then I mentioned that I was an anti-theist and non violent.Their mood changed then they went crazy,they manhandled me out the bar then six huge guards beat me up.In the melee I struck one of the guards,they then phoned the police. For the first time in my 39 years of life, I was detained for 13 HOURS. I was then mucked about and had to attend the court six times for hearings and meetings with the appointed legal aid lawyer.I had to drive a 320 mile trip as I live in Scotland. I did not have a police record,yet the guards who were employed had criminal records. The guard who I hit had 28 offences dating back to his childhood.He also has psychological reports and the one that infuriated me was that he had already been imprisoned for perjury. I was a lamb to the slaughter for Berwick Court. I was astonished at the lies of the guards and police on the trial day. I did not even have a jury or proper judge, I was incriminated by a clerk and three frumpy old lady majestrates who only sit on juvenile cases. The most baffling thing to me was the fact that while I obviously affirmed their christian oath, my accusers all swore on a holy testament bible, including a police officer. While I sat and listened to their inconsistent lies ,my lawyer stayed silent , he did not cross examine once. The lawyer then sent me a letter telling me that it will cost me a fotune to appeal my conviction.He also states in the letter that he was sorry outcome . ...I decided to text him back and I told him that since his KANGAROO COURT allowed god beleivers to blatantly lie under their oath, that according to the bible, (which I personally have deciphered word for word over the last ten years)liars will burn in hell. To my surprise I received another letter from the upset lawyer, who claimed I was BEING OFFENSIVE to him . ...I did not reply….I am in the poor sector of society, I and my wife have three children but all our time has been consumed by my youngest sons illness. My wife donated her kidney eight years ago to him but he is now battling a form of lung cancer, which was caused by his drugs. I dont ask for sympathy nor does my family, as I earn our keep by driving a taxi.I dont earn much but I have learned so much about evolution and science over the last twelve years…..I clearly understand the right to offend…...I will always support you Ayaan.

posted on May 14, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

6. Martin Christensen

Hi Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I am a teacher from Denmark and I write to express my sincere admiration for you, and to compliment you for having the courage of your convictions. Your story and courage is an inspiration to me and a lot of my students. Thank you.

posted on June 10, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sorry Ayaan, you moved to the USA because you were nearly stripped of your Dutch citizenship which you gained by identity fraud: you lied about your name, date of birth,the country from which you came to Holland, as well as the reasons why you fled to Holland. You had to leave your PM-position in the Dutch Parliament because of that and was nearly stripped of your Dutch citizenship. You are a shameless liar, a disgusting human being who cannot be trusted even for a second.

posted on October 4, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

8. apo-calypso

And I despise your rotten to the core “religion”, and piss on your pedofile “mohammed”.

posted on June 11, 2010
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Pretty shameful, despicable and pitiful response to her arguments. Well, that’s all you disgusting, pig-ignorant taliban clowns are capable of.

posted on June 11, 2010
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.